They’ll miss it once it’s gone

Tim Wirth argues that UNESCO admission of Palestine as a member will initiate a cascade of U.S. withdrawals from UN specialized agencies, damaging important American interests.  This is because current law prohibits the U.S. from providing financial contributions to any UN entity that admits Palestine as a member.

John Bolton says

UNESCO has made its decision: It prefers Palestinian membership to American participation. Now let the rest of the U.N. specialized agencies make their choice.

This is game of chicken, played between the U.S. Congress, which is not interested in changing the law, and foreign governments, most of which have so far seen support for Palestine’s membership in international organizations as a cheap way of supporting the Palestinians and expressing dissatisfaction with the Israeli government’s negotiating stance.

Despite its good works, few care much about UNESCO, which the U.S. stayed out of for years without much harm done.  As Wirth notes, the more important UN agencies for American interests are the World Intellectual Property Organization, the World Health Organization, the International Telecommunications Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Each will make its own decision based on the procedures outlined in its charter.

Some argue that failure to pay dues does not automatically lead to withdrawal from membership, and the U.S. could continue in arrears for at least several years, and possibly more, without legal consequences.  That may be so, but American influence would certainly decline, as would the capabilities of organizations that really do perform functions–like inspection of nuclear programs–that serve U.S. interests.

We are watching a diplomatic game of chicken, which like most diplomatic games occurs in slow motion.  If Palestine’s supporters blink first, their cause suffers a setback, but not really a very serious one.  More than 100 countries have already recognized Palestine.  Membership in international organizations won’t add much.  The international system would then remain what it is:  an imperfect but useful multilateral instrument through which Washington has often been successful in pursuing its interests.

But if they don’t and the U.S. cuts off funding, we could be witnessing the end of the post-World War II international system, one that depends on the United Nations and its specialized agencies to carry a lot of water for Washington.  Bolton and company don’t see it that way–they see it as a hindrance to American power and would rather get rid of it altogether.  But they’ll miss it once it’s gone.

Daniel Serwer

Share
Published by
Daniel Serwer

Recent Posts

Trump caused this Israeli war with Iran

Iran's enrichment beyond the limits of the 2015 deal is the proximate cause of today's…

19 hours ago

Violence in this good cause is not good

The demonstrators in LA need to cool it. Not because they are wrong, but because…

4 days ago

Even with a ceasefire, the war will continue

The Ukrainians expect any non-democratic regime in Moscow to continue Putin's effort. The war will…

2 weeks ago

Calms before the Balkan storms

Democracy and rule of law in both Bosnia and Serbia are in the balance. The…

2 weeks ago

Israel in Gaza: illegal, immoral, unwise

Israel is making two states living securely side-by-side much more difficult. Law, morality, and wisdom…

2 weeks ago

Nuclear Iran – facts, goals and opportunity 

President Trump’s decision to kill the Iran nuclear deal was an obvious failure. Lack of…

4 weeks ago